Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Preliminary findings of an informal longitudinal study into the research/practice interface: noting the influence of extra trees in the wood rather than throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Preliminary findings of an informal longitudinal study into the research/practice interface: noting the influence of extra trees in the wood rather than throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8|Likes:
Irvine C. (2002): p16-7
The challenges faced while attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive speech and language therapy intervention in adults with learning disability are described in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. Controls were inadvertently interfered with, instructions ignored and, when the changes in service users were noticed by management, the researcher was sent off around the county to provide intensive interaction training in the middle of the project. A second project on the development of an understanding of negatives was disrupted when the three staff involved variously went on maternity leave, were promoted, and went off sick with stress, and the results were never written up. Based on her experiences, the author suggests an alternative guide to conducting research in practice.
Irvine C. (2002): p16-7
The challenges faced while attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive speech and language therapy intervention in adults with learning disability are described in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. Controls were inadvertently interfered with, instructions ignored and, when the changes in service users were noticed by management, the researcher was sent off around the county to provide intensive interaction training in the middle of the project. A second project on the development of an understanding of negatives was disrupted when the three staff involved variously went on maternity leave, were promoted, and went off sick with stress, and the results were never written up. Based on her experiences, the author suggests an alternative guide to conducting research in practice.

More info:

Published by: Speech & Language Therapy in Practice on Jul 04, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/31/2014

pdf

text

original

 
in my experience
SPEECH & LANGUAGE THERAPY IN PRACTICE
SPRING 2002
16
“The evidence base for effective work is insuffi-cient - this specialism will never be valued untilthis is rectified,” was the message I received froma gathering of speech and language therapistsfrom across the country who work with peoplewith learning disabilities. I took this back to theAdults with Learning Disabilities team inSomerset. We all agreed that we loved working inour specialism, we worked hard, we felt valuedwithin our multidisciplinary teams, and staffgroups and service users respected and trusted us.It seemed, though, that we had yet to win overour own profession. Fine. Easy. We would showthem. We would do some research.I was nominated to have the first go as I had alittle experience of attempting to do someresearch into in-house evaluation of the efficacyof Total Communication and, most recently,around Intensive Interaction (Irvine, 1998). After ayear of hard work - six months negotiating and sixmonths implementing - the research was totallyinvalid. Why? Because other people kept interfering!Firstly, the care staff who were using theIntensive Interaction noticed that the environ-ment in which they were working was dull anduninspiring, so they gave up one of their week-ends to alter my controlled room. We could nolonger measure the efficacy of IntensiveInteraction and the project had to be changed toencompass measurements around response toenvironment.
Immediately attractive
The next interference occurred because I was stu-pid enough to take a day off. While my back wasturned, my control was destroyed by a care assis-tant showing off her purchases from a car bootsale - bright, colourful, interactive toys whichwere immediately attractive to the fourteen peo-ple we were controlling researching.This was untenable but the worst sabotageoccurred because I’d made the mistake ofattempting to work within a multidisciplinary con-text. When the agreed six months period was overI went to collect all the video footage we hadaccumulated. We had agreed that five minutes a
Preliminary findingsof an informallongitudinal studyinto the research / practice interface:
noting the influenceof extra trees inthe wood ratherthan throwing thebaby out with thebath-water
if youcan smile at yourself want to show yourtherapy worksthink what you do isn’tworth writing up
Read this
Cath Irvine
takes atongue-in-cheek lookat the challenges ofevaluating theeffectiveness ofspeech andlanguage therapy.Although down, she isnot yet out, and evenhas some words ofadvice for would-beresearchers.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->